Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Five.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good morning. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are looking at slightly modified language to the miscellaneous fish and wildlife bill twenty six zero seven eight three with our legislative council. Welcome back, Bradley.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, and good morning. Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Council. We're looking at draft 3.2 of the technical corrections bill dated 03/11/2026.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: The

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: changes from yesterday are on page six lines 14 through 18. These changes states that if the board determines that, that it is necessary to issue or require additional big game tags or big game permits that are not otherwise identified in this section, the department may issue such tags and permits and may assess a fee for such tags and permits if not more than the prevailing rate for big game tax. So this bill is a departure from a previous draft in that it removes the $40 cap that was previously in the draft, but it also narrows the authority to big game tags and big game permits,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: and those are changes. K. Do members have questions or comments on these changes?

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: I hate question on I I've seen the consistency of big game tags or permits all throughout the entire sentence except at the very end. The prevailing rate for big game just says tags. It doesn't say tags or permits. Reason for that, we need

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: to be cons continue the consistency.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the department said that the words tag and permit, they use them fairly interchangeably. I had asked them about that specific not that specific issue, but the difference between tags and permits. And they they say that they use it interchangeably. I think what this last piece of that sentence modifies, though, what that refers to is the prevailing rate for a big game tag. And so that is a specific reference to a specific what would essentially be I I guess I can't say specific dollar amount because of a change, but it would be what the prevailing rate is. So that that refers to something different or something unique in that particular instance, if that makes sense. So I think to answer your question, I don't think it sense to Chris. I don't think it needs to specify both in that instance because it reverses something specific.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And do we know what the prevailing rate is? I guess up here they list licenses and tags. So I guess we would look to whatever type of animal it was and that would be the prevailing I would be ready for that question because that's the obvious next step when you read this. I I appreciate it. Unless it's more concise and clear, I think. Other that's still bugging you, Rob? I mean, I

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: it makes sense to Chris, I'm fine with it because I just

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: We can always terms are

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: not deal with on our own basis. So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. Could add permits if we need to, but

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Well, it's not.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Yeah. I mean, does it I I am I I you know, I mean, can you consider that a reference to that line? Does it need to be that specific to end it with the prevailing rate for big gain tags and permits?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, we can change it to you know, if we wanna take a belt and suspenders approach to it, you know, we can we can change it. You know, I I think my reading of this piece and I I have you know, I think either way is fine. You know, my reading of this is that it refers to the prevailing rate for big game tags. And then so what a person would do is look at the statute, see what those prevailing rates are, and and make that determination based on that piece. Every every permit has a tag. And and and to clarify something, but it wouldn't be, you know, hunters making the determination what that rate is. It would be the department making a determination what that rate is. Though I suppose someone could determine whether or not that is actually the prevailing rate by referring to the statute, what the big game tag is. Suffice to say, this refers to something in the statute. Let me just look at something

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: quick.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the tag is in statute?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, the the tag I mean, we could see above. You know, if we see a bear tag, deer archery tags Yeah. You know, things like that. And and so, presumably, the prevailing rate for a big game tag, if they wanted another deer tag, it'd be $23. If they want another bear tag, it'd be $5. Presumably. Presumably. But this does give the department discretion to make that determination themselves.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Nice.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: So the so the way and I I'll pass around this for this year. But so, basically, any permit, say you would get an antlerless lottery permit, it would become a tag endorsement on the license and would be listed as tag. Those are the things listed on the right hand side here, licensing? Right.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The tag is the thing you actually put on the animal, should you? Right. Think I feel like it's clear, but I'm fine either way. We wanna I

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: don't know. Anything changing. It's noticing the inconsistency

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Is this the view, or is this, is that your number? Do they know who the hunter is by

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: the number? They're send specific tags that relates to your thing. The only thing that's different is if you buy the hap habitat, Steve, it's at they put it in a different place on the license. It's not used. So

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: you can follow every 100.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Every person will have a suspect. Every person in the state that buys either a fishing license or hunting license or trapping license, whatever it is, has a specific conservation ID.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Many of them. Alright. Any further discussion on this bill? Is there a a motion to approve? I'll by representative Tagliavia, seconded by representative Pritchard to approve draft 3.2 of twenty six zero seven eight three affirmatively. Are you ready? Maybe we should pause for a moment.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I'm just curious.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. Think it's good. Look. Yeah.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've I've never seen before, but I apologize. So

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: once you apply for the, like, the lottery, there's a moose lottery, there's a antlerless deer lottery. Once you apply for that and get accepted, you put that endorsement on the license, and it becomes listed as a tag. Interesting. Great. That was helpful. Yeah. That's helpful context. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is there further discussion

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: by schools? Yeah. Just can I add that the draft date was yesterday?

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: When I did this draft, it was yesterday. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: 03/11/2026. Yep. Kate's just arriving. Good morning. You're in the midst of a motion to approve the 1610.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Motion of the line.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: I mean, at the moment, there's some slightly modified language Oh, okay. At the So sorry. Yeah. It's Thanks.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We've all found it clarified. We're happy to let you take a look. So

[Rep. Kate Logan]: just big game. Big game and some Prevailingly

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: approved big game sets.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And the modifiers in there were removed by an English major on the committee. Thank you.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: And an English major.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Which is great. It's much more succinct and clear, and it was redundant.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Could somebody remind me what big game we might be talking about?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Big game in the state of Vermont is deer, turkey,

[Rep. Kate Logan]: moose. What other big game might And

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: beer. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And beer.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: So what other Everything else is considered small game.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Right. So what other big game

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: might there be? What There isn't. Not a mistake.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Not a mistake. Not not not a terrible.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Listed. Yeah. Aspiration line.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: So I mean, okay. Well, what need would there be for additional big game tags or big

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: game permits? Well, you don't you don't get tags for small game.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Right. But it's a single big game tags. So

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: for example, this year, they changed they changed the deer rules. So you have the ability to get a second buck tag, depending on there's specific things that you have to meet. So once you do that, then you can apply for it. They verify that it's good, and you can get the endorsement. The problem is this year that everybody that does that will get it for free.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: I see.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: There's no charge because they couldn't assess a charge. So what the commissioner wants to do is just if they have a a lottery season or or something like this. And there used to be years ago, there used to be a second buck value. But when they changed the rules to $1 a year

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Had to change.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Did it. Well, they took that tag off, so

[Rep. Kate Logan]: you couldn't get the endorsement. Okay. Thank you so much.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Further discussion? Alright. Will the Clerk please commence to call the roll?

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Yeah. So, we had a motion and a second.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We did. Just I write it missed it. Was Tagliavia moved. I don't know if you keep track of

[Rep. Kate Logan]: the Tagliavia motion, moved

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: and Pritchard seconded.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: He never missed a second. Okay. Representative Austin, yep. Representative Hoyt?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Representative Labor?

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Representative Logan? Yes. Representative Morris? Yes. Representative North?

[Rep. Rob North (time-bound, roll call response)]: Yes. Representative Pritchard?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Yes.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: And I'm assuming representative Satcowitz's small buildings

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Not for

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: the votes. Representative Tagliavia?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (time-bound, roll call response)]: Yes.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: And representative Sheldon?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Alright.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard will be reporting this bill. It has a slightly different path to the clerk because it's a committee bill. So it has a slight delay. It has to get a number on the floor and then be on the calendar. So we'll just watch for it, and it it probably will go to ways and means. Yes. So

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: And I talked to representative yesterday about it, and and showed her what the present language was.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So Okay. Great. Alright. Thank you so much, Bradley.

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Thank you, Brent. And I

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: will send a clean copy of the bill,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Cath. So, I wouldn't mind if we started our discussion about what's the next thing on the agenda? Seven to seven. Michael O'Grady will be joining us. But so I guess I made a little list of things we've talked about. Remember, we are providing feedback input to the House Energy Committee on the what's called the siting data storage siting. The notes that I have too, and I brought this up with we brought it up with Maria yesterday, but also with the chair of that committee that they might wanna consider expansions of existing facilities. We have potential omission that they had that they just didn't notice yet. And then I would recommend well, I'm actually wanting to talk to Michael about the removal of the redundant permitting and its criteria review, which will be a Michael thing for water and an Ellen thing for section 50, section two forty eight.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Is this the latest draft that that's on our thing today?

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: We've got

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: these. Do have the latest draft from that video? Or should we go to their we could go to their web page for the latest. If you

[Rep. Kate Logan]: This is the one that I got on their web their video.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Great.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Is it in the latest? It might.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: It's under Maria Royal.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Yeah. I thought yesterday, there was a new one yesterday.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: That's actually the new one. Yeah. That it was that's.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, see a 1.3 under Maria's name today on their webpage. They have some gray and blue additions. So the yellow are what we saw in the draft we looked at. Yep. Gray and blue will be after they took test

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: So

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: we got a refreshment.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Don't know yet to do it. I'm checking the website.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So a question about PAT three because of redundancy.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: If we maybe wanted to share with the premier question about what you know, sort of between one and twenty megawatts and

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: It's sort

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: of the results of the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have that on my list. Why 20 megawatts?

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: It's not the one we have. Why 20? And our watts.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's a click now. It's huge. Because it's just like

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: so you go up to 19.5, you get nothing in 20. Boom.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I asked TJ after we broke, and he said that 20 is a pretty low limit for what's expected for these and that and we we should ask representative Sebelius since she's the main person behind the bill, how she chose that. But I did bring that up with Cath, just like Bennington.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: The 1.3 is under our folders now. Do apologize

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: about that. Thing for this committee, this is a complex and somewhat confusing topic that I we did review, and Michael will be here, but the PFAS definition, I do understand how they got to where they are, and I think I'm fine with it, but I just want, like, in the buckets of what's in our jurisdiction in this bill, that's pretty squarely there. So, to be clear, they're using the current EPA definition for all the reasons we've heard from witnesses. I think it's imperfect, but perhaps what we have right now in the world of PFAS monitoring and reality. Interesting.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Reality being when we get better testing, then we could Do more. Right.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Exactly. Expand the definition.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Definitions, three

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Glasses. Glasses as as the left of us.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. And they're putting it in statute rather than referring to it because of the rapidly changing environment. Rapid tap. Yep.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Using that for lubricity, it I mean, is it that it's using it in the pipes that the water travels through?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think and actually, I'll let maybe Ela chime in because she's done a little research on this. It's in the coolant in this instance. Remember remember we welcome, Michael. If you were discussing that now, and if you wanna join us, please do. Remember when we did last year, I think, manufacturing and it was a lubricant for that, but I think it's also what's in the coolant to keep it from freezing, I presume. Perhaps we should all be aware of it's in probably the things that we use, like windshield wiper fluid comes to mind to keep it from freezing. I don't know that, but I'm thinking there's a connection there.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Actually, that's a glycol, alcohol ish kind of

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think it's probably worth checking. Well, when you the Rain X one is what comes to mind, the water.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: You mean the one that makes

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: the water beat up on

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: your Yes. That one is highly likely that that that's got the PFAS in it. So, we're talking about the buckets that are relevant to our committee's area of jurisdiction, and since you're here now, we'll focus we were in the middle of I was saying I understand the reality of why we they've chosen the PFAS definition that they have and that I can support it, and we're just discussing it. So if members have questions, certainly Michael can help us. Or if anyone objects, I I wanna hear. Representative Austin? Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (time-bound)]: So I feel like we're right at the beginning of a very long process with this bill. And I feel like, do you have questions or I have questions that would need to be answered to make an informed vote. I'm wondering if we should also keep track of the questions for you at

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: all. They are. Mine are written down right here. Okay. I was just going through them.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (time-bound)]: Yes. Yep. I just I'm very concerned about water, And I'm just very, very concerned when you jerk clean water. So I don't know

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that's what this is addressing. And so I would ask you to consider, So, we're in a moment of working with another committee that's worked on a bill. Maybe we got a little bit late in the process, but what we're going to decide today is if our concerns are enough to ask for the bill, or I think where I was hoping ahead is give them our concerns and ask them to make changes. And if they're willing to do that, we keep the bill on schedule, which will be voted out tomorrow in their committee. So I'll caution you to dig too deep into in process and underway with actually, I think, and just making sure that what you see here is what I would see here is supporting your concerns. K.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: I have a question. Yes. Do we have any idea what is the determining factor for like, we what do we have? We have five megawatt data centers now going from 20 to a 100 megawatt. What is the criteria that makes one of these these companies that wants to construct one of these? What how do they decide how big they want it to be? Is it the computing level that they that they want?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's gonna be the need for AI. I mean and how prevalent that becomes, and that will, I think, drive the scale.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Is it because the the data just needs to be more regionalized for transmission, and that's why these centers can't it won't be just, you know, in in certain states. They're they're gonna be spread all over.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They are already all over. They're all over The US right now 20 or or above.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I went to an energy meeting in the off session, and we talked about this with sort of I would say seven states were represented. It was new to me, but folks were talking about one strategy for managing load is that if these are around our time zones or around the globe, you can sync it up with peak demand in the areas, and you could utilize one that was in off peak timing and turn down the one that was in where people needed the electricity. I have no idea if that's something these companies are working on. It would take a lot of coordination, but I suspect they will have to. And that was sort of a new piece of information to me that might be helpful in understanding.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: To balance the demand.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To balance the demand so that you didn't have to overbuild every grid where there was one of these to sort of share around.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is a map. I wish I had printed it out, but I was looking at it yesterday. And there there's one in New Hampshire, and there's one right across the border in New York.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Of of a very large one. Do you know how big those are?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, one was red, and one was yellow. And I think that means that they're I I don't recall exactly what the the difference was, but I think the red is a higher level one, and that was in New York. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Logan.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Do you know if they took testimony from

[Rep. Kate Logan]: consultants or industry representatives who spoke about, their, you know, strategic planning around geographic distribution of data centers or something like that?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I was only the director of the water stuff, but I have been in that committee when they were taking testimony, and there are people around the table that represent industry. I don't know what testimony they provided. You know, Green Mountain Power's lobbyist is in the room. You know? There are other industry lobbyists in the room. I wasn't there for all that testimony because I

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: was focused on the water.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: And I guess my so I guess the the thing that I feel like I don't entirely understand where I mean, I I understand where our jurisdiction is on this, but I guess I just don't understand the technical side of this, like that, like, how well distributed our data center's going to be, how large will they need to be in order to meet demand, and then what is going to be the demand on our water supply in order to meet the demand, and and then what amount of water, demand would be harmful to us. I don't understand that latter fact there.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that there's a lot of unknowns, and that's the impetus behind this bill. Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But but I the water section is drafted in a way that you wouldn't be able to get a permit if it was gonna be significantly harmful to the waters of the state.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: What are the criteria that establish what harm like, what is a what is an indicator of a significant amount water use that would cause harm?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not subjective.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Yeah. That's what I assume it's not.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you let's just work backward through the water section. You need to get a four zero one certification. Right? And that means a comprehensive assessment of how that proposed activity, which is going to have a discharge, is going to affect the water quality of the state and specifically the water segment that it is on. There are usually studies that are required for that, often focusing on aquatic biota and aquatic habitat and how those would be affected. That will look at at source because you can't have aquatic habitat if the source is that significantly harmed or or drawn down on. There's a provision in the language that says they can't withdraw during drought, which is generally seven q 10. It's like the lowest the average flow in in August over ten days. And so you have protections built in to that language. In addition, they have to get every applicable permit that would be applicable, discharge, surface water, groundwater. What's not listed in there? So they're gonna need a they're probably gonna have more than 20 people working there even though we're coming and going, even though they don't need a lot of people. And then they're gonna need a public water system permit, and they're gonna have to test that water. And it has to go through act two fifty, which has another cumulative water review.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: So the the studies that would identify the specific harms that could be done to local water supplies would be done as part of the permitting processes?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Like, this that water section is part of the the conditions for that contract. Right?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so in order to get that contract, you're gonna have to do everything that's in that water section.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Tagliavia. The

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: wording in this bill requires only or allows only closed loop or would allow only closed loop. Is that correct?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Unless the district commission and the act two fifty review determines that the closed loop is not feasible. Okay. And then if you're gonna use groundwater to cool, you need a groundwater withdrawal permit. If you're gonna use surface water to cool, you need a surface water withdrawal permit.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin, do you have a question? Yes.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. Quickly. I'm assuming that if they were gonna change any of their manufacturing or their processes, they would have to get a repermit if they're gonna do anything that would change the way they're operating, especially around clean water.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because I didn't draft the rest of the bill. I don't know what the conditions are for any potential change. I I do know if you're gonna if you're in you've got a CPG and you make a significant change, you need to seek approval for that. I expect that is similar here, but I can't say that for sure. I can check with Maria.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's under Pritchard.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: But it doesn't isn't there a ten year period?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, a ten year term. Right? Yeah. And but that doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want No. On the ten year term.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Why is it so long?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I I think these CPGs and such are that's a pretty average term.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think I would guess because of significant investments required to do something.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, yeah, like a a FERC dam is 40.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Michael, I would like to talk about the bottom of page 12 and the testament just to help clarify some of what we're sharing. On line 11, obtaining all applicable water quality permits from the agency, and it has a list. Really, Coster brought up a concern with this, but I went when I went back and read it, it says all applicable. I mean, I think there was concern at the agency about somehow, requiring them to apply for unnecessary permits. I'm I'm not sure I understand the concern, and I'm not can you help with that?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, you can change the term applicable to all permits required by the agency of natural resources, including I I I think that's an overread, but it's easily addressed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's the upper

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: it's earlier in that section.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. What

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: do think about Where

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: it's in let's see, subsection c. I wonder if they changed it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No, they didn't change it. I went right after we took testimony.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Went and read it. Used to say, like, we'll get a groundwater permit even if it's not

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Did you change that word applicable in the last few hours?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Have you made edits in the last twenty four hours?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. I haven't. Yeah.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So okay. I I will I'm okay with that than the way it is. And then I just wanna understand the

[Bradley Sherman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're okay with applicable?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I I think I'm okay. Others, and then online, the the the four zero one water quality certification, I also am okay with this, but I just want to hear, in your words, how you would explain this one more time just so I'm sure I understand. Because I guess what I I I'm not understanding really is the flexibility this might provide for the, other like the PFAS. We did talk about it with you, but I just need to hear it again. So

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: large caveat because this has never been applied to a state permit before. So how it's going to go, I I'm I'm basing that on how the agency applies it for the federal permits. Right now, a four zero one certification is only issued if there's a federal permit that proposes a discharge to state waters. But here, you are saying that the agency has to file that same process for this state permit. And, generally, what they do is they will look and see what the proposed activity is or what the ongoing activity is. They will see if that activity, as proposed or ongoing, meets the water quality standards. They will also look at other additional aspects related to that, including, you know, where what's its source? How what will happen if this activity occurs? Well, how will that affect the water quality of the downstream? They can look at additional factors that are not necessarily permitted, like PFAS, and what contribution that that would provide. I mean, technically, PFAS is a waste that is being discharged, pollutant, but there is no current standard for its control or effectively methotone limitation. So they can say, Hey, you are discharging this. You need to put in, you need to put in, filtration of some sort. And that's that's a possibility that they do have filtration where it it's getting better and more effective. There are technologies out there that pilot projects all across the country where they're trying to figure out how to get eFAS out of water. When that will be effective, I don't know.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: What exactly is a water quality certificate? Is that for discharge?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. It's it's currently under the the federal law. It it is for your activity. Right? And it says your activity meets the state water quality standards. For example, think of a hydroelectric dam. They need that FERC license, and and hydro obviously is using water. One of the things that it also does is it diverts water into bypass stretches, etcetera. And that can that can basically lead to a discharge. And therefore, you need to show that that hydroelectric dam meets the water quality standards. The agency can say its current or proposed activity isn't meeting water quality standards because it's going to affect this. It's usually it's not going to provide enough water to allow for appropriate aquatic habitat to meet the standards. And so you they say, hey. You have to run the flow at this, or you can't draw down in the winter as far as you want to. And so they can say, you don't need it, but if you do these things, you will need it. Is usage part of that criteria? It depends on the on the permit. Right? So, like, by usage, what do you mean?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: By usage as what these data centers would be using for water. Does that tie into the certificate, or is that simply on the 56,000 whatever gallons?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. So that's groundwater. So a water quality cert is gonna be about kind of comprehensive. Right? Like the the best example I can give, and I don't think it was ever issued, was for Vermont Yankee and getting a a water quality cert for that because it it's it was an NRC nuclear regulatory commission permitted licensed site, and they looked at everything. They looked at, like, whether tritium from the the reactor was leaking into groundwater and how that affected water in general and whether or not that tritium was reaching surface waters. So that's kind of the comp it that and that is not a permitted thing. And back then, there was no groundwater permit. There was no groundwater strategy. There was no groundwater public trust. It was like, they got to do what they wanted to do. But the four zero one looked at that, and and, ultimately, there were groundwater monitoring wells put in to determine how much tritium was reaching groundwater. And so fifty seven six is just your authorization to take that water. Four zero one is all of the effects of the activity on water. Okay.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Yeah. Big question for me with respect to the water is like with a closed loop system. How much once the system is up and running, it's charged, how much leakage could one of these average leak and be considered discharge? Number one. And number two, the next best option if there was gonna be an application for a permit in this state, what would that look like for water usage?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I was trying to figure out effectively I was in that space yesterday trying to figure that out. And so I learned that a closed loop system will reduce the water usage in a data center by 70 to 80%. And so what does that mean? Well, it depends on how much water you're using in the first place.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Right? 80 of a 100,000 gallons or 70 to 80% of half a million.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So I tried to figure what the average is, and it really depends on how big the center is. Some of the centers in Virginia, it's over a million gallons. Right? Well over a million gallons.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: In a closed loop?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. In just in general. Right? In general. So if they used a closed loop, they would be bringing that down by 70 to 80%. Right? And so if the proposal is for an open open cooling system that's gonna use, on average, most of the resources, say, 100,000 gallons a day, and they go to a closed loop, then it's gonna reduce it by 70 to 80%. But it all depends on the size and the scale. You know? It's like, I can't say that that's what you're gonna get every time. And I think that's part of the four zero one. It's part of Act t 50, your your comprehensive review of all the environmental effects, you know, criteria one through nine. And and there are things that you that aren't even mentioned in that section that are embedded into all those permits. So after Yankee, there was discussion about making groundwater a public trust. There was a two year study committee about that. I staffed that. At the time, I had no idea what that meant to create groundwater a public trust because most states don't. Regardless of that, the legislature went through it declared groundwater a public trust. There was litigation about what that meant, and the court held that when ANR is permitting an activity that could affect groundwater, they have to look and see whether or not the public trust is being affected and whether or not the proposed use is going to impair the public's trust in that groundwater. And so the courts directed the agency to have that, what they call the public trust review, for any activity that's going to affect groundwater. That is embedded in what's called the groundwater rule and protection strategy, which is embedded in all of those permits that have an effect on groundwater. And it's pretty much all of ANR's permits where the groundwater rule and protection strategy is embedded. So you don't see that in this language because it is so part of ANR's permitting system, but it's there to protect the public trust and groundwater.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Just trying to get a feel for the quantity of water. I'm looking on the left here, and there's a place there. It's operating 920,000 square feet. It looks like it's in the city of Boston. This is a 30 megawatt place. I'm trying to figure out how if we're going going by half a million gallons, it's gotta be I'm thinking in the city, it's gotta be a closed loop. How else could the water system provide that in the middle of a city? That's what I'm trying to figure out.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That is why we are having this conversation. That's why this bill is important for us to keep moving. And and I think it's great everyone's interested, but I want us to stay idle on the prize.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: I'm just trying to figure out, you know, for the for us, the water.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I didn't draft the initial version of this language, and that initial version said data centers need to use closed loop unless it's not feasible. And I'm like, well, how many states do that? I looked around. States with big data center, you know, activity, they they do require that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They do. So these are closed loop, you think, most of them?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I do think I can't say that for sure. You know? I didn't look at every state. I didn't look at it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Doesn't seem I mean, to your point, it doesn't seem logical that you can't do it if

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: it's a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: closed loop.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Yeah. I think that's a lot of water used to be. You try to draw it either out of the ground or over the surface. That's a lot of water.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I'll just make the point that even if most of these are closed loop systems, a closed loop system doesn't necessarily mean a 100% known replacement. So you might have occasional large withdrawals or occasional large discharges. Guess not,

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in this language, supposed to get it from a public water system, groundwater, or surface water. You're probably gonna have to truck it in.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: What What I'm I'm just trying to say to the committee is even if it's closed loop system, there is some water exchange to replenish that. So even if it's closed loop, think there's just

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: because of evaporation.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Yeah. Or breaks or just So all I guess my point is it seems like this language in here is really important, regardless of whether you're getting 100,000 gallons every day or once a year. It's just so much volume.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And from what I've been reading, they are trying to move away from water because of these concerns. They're trying to use air. They're trying to use other things. And it's because, I think, because of concerns like this.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: What concerns

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you like?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: And I can't remember what the answer are there systems that don't utilize water? Like, I talked about refrigeration or something like that.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, coolants. Right? Coolants are chemicals. They're not water. So some of these systems use coolants. Without water? Well, that's I I I don't know. I can't answer that specifically.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: What what I saw in my tiny bit of research yesterday is that some either are or are considering using air conditioning.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: So the system, no why.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Which I'm sure is

[Rep. Kate Logan]: More energy.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Energy intensive. Yeah. Just like our heat pumps. Yeah. I think those are the main options.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. So I'm okay with the water sections the way that they are. Others have objections to letting the energy committee know that. Not seeing it. So what's gonna happen is I'm gonna send a letter with our comments to that committee. And if we have suggested changes, Let's go see if they're willing to make them. I don't think I have suggested changes in the water section. Looks comfortable with that. Thank you so much for joining us.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Thank you.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Land use sections, just reminding folks that they had started out with kind of sticking to a kind of more traditional PUC siting review process. But then more recently, they added data centers to definition of development so that that part of would go that part of the development review would go under Act two fifty jurisprudence. And so with that thought, I would encourage them, and they've done they've done this with highlighting in the latest draft, I would encourage them to remove redundant citing review by the PUC because I think that will be conflicting and confusing. But I think it's just residual language, but I really want to encourage them to work with Ellen to remove that. So they are very much looking for a holistic review, which I think from citing Act two fifty provides, and we've taken testimony on that. Rob's nodding. I think he and I are the two people who have served on commissions. Representative Tagliavia? My only question maybe I misunderstood. I thought they were looking

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: for review under both to try to avoid gaps.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Exactly. They will still all of the energy aspects will be PUC Okay. In the way it's drafted, and then the more land use and environmental will be land use district commission in the area of the state that this is proposed. And to your point, representative North, yesterday thinking about I think it would I'd be shocked if it didn't at least the district commission actually didn't decide it was a major. I mean, I think it would be a major. So I don't think that we need to speak to that. Again, that's already in the process that's in statute and rule. Representative Logan? I mean, I

[Rep. Kate Logan]: guess my only question is, you know, are we regulating at small enough scale with this? For the 20 megawatt thing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. And I that's good. I think we can include that as a concern that we have, that we wanna make sure they are, you know, solid at 20 megawatts, what their reasoning is.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Yeah. Representative North pointed out that there's already a nine megawatt data center in Burlington.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: I I do. That That bit of data was that was the total amount managed by that particular company. Was

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Oh, not that big.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So it's distributed. The individual sites are about one megawatt. Okay. That's That's variety of across from England. Yeah. And my top my mind here is the expansion of existing facilities is just making sure that's drawn to their attention and that they wanna address that. Yeah. Representative Chapin. But I to

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: to that to that point, there is a one megawatt facility already right in Wellston.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, they said we had a number of them in the state already in Chittenden County.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I'm presuming they're adjacent to a facility or part of another business in Vermont, and I'm presuming those data centers even at, you know, half to one kilowatt went through a lot went through after 50. I'm curious about why we'd want any data center under 20 megawatts not to go through. Even if it's on a smaller parcel of land, I think it's the 10 acre threshold that we're talking about. Right, right. Data center would or would not trigger Act two fifty review. And I guess I'm just curious. Would we want small data centers not

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to trigger Act two fifty review? I wouldn't presume they went through Act two fifty because they could be in a Tenneger town. They are if they're in most

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Yeah. Or South Burlington. South Burlington.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Any of them, Middlebury, would be 10 acre town. I mean, I that's the current jurisdictional threshold. Unless there's another one I'm not thinking of right now. But I don't know

[Rep. Kate Logan]: what that Burlington First Light data center is, but we know that there's the DHS data center in Boston.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't know what kind

[Rep. Kate Logan]: of permitting process they had to go through. I

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: guess I'm just posing this question to our committee. Are we comfortable with small data centers not going through RAC250?

[Rep. Kate Logan]: That seems strange. Right.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Well, if they're on something smaller than 10 acres and they're not turning at two fifty.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Yeah, and soon they may be in tier 1A areas. We're completely exempt from Act

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: two fifty.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Tier one a, tier one b?

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Yeah, exactly. Be in tier a. Yeah. I think they would they would still trigger act two fifty in tier one b if they were over 10 acre sites. But tier one a, there would be no jurisdictional figure. The municipality would be responsible for holding them to that kind of development standard.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But, yeah, it's a problematic representative labor.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: I dialed into Columbus, Ohio just a few minutes ago. And the reason I did that is my daughter one of my daughters lives in Lincoln County, Ohio. Intel and Nvidia have gone in there and are producing a very large chip plant along with iPAI. The biggest part of their delay they've already spent a 1.4 built, and the biggest part of their delay is with that water source. They found out after getting well into it that the site could not provide

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: enough

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: amount of water needed. So they have gone to additional municipalities in that area to see if they could draw down from water supplies. So that's how desperate they are for water, but more importantly, it's for not even big enough.

[Cath (Committee Assistant)]: Yeah, a lot of water.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: That's a lot of water.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We a lot of water.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Lot have of water, which I think is

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: And what prevents someone from buying 10 parcels and putting two megawatts on every parcel and having 20 megawatts within one or two towns in Vermont because we have so much water.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I just asked how much water does a one megawatt data center require? 6.5 7,000,000 gallons of water per year according to an AI generated.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: If personal AI use is less than Daily consumption. Watching TV

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: for two hours. That's particularly

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: watch TV. Yeah. 18,000 gallons a day. A day.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: That's a gallon.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's that's a lot. Consumption can vary based on factors like climate technology and workload that

[Rep. Kate Logan]: we typically regulating down to The

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: smaller facility uses evaporative cooling. Using evaporative cooling will use about 18,000 gallons to 70 well, they're going between liters and gallons, but 18,000 gallons.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: This particular site needed 1,200,000 of the

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: raw weight. They should allow anything over 20 megawatts.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Yeah. Then everything under that should be regulated. Right. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. So, I'm gleaning from this that we actually don't want to be a bump in their road. We support this bill pretty strongly, and, I'm gonna suggest that we could bring those these questions to them, and then I'm also gonna say they may, bring those to the senate when the bill gets over there. But is that fair to say? Seeing lots of nod.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: And are you including feedback that we're concerned about the below 20 kilowatt Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Currently around water usage? So down to the smallest. Feedback's at smaller.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: And now these data centers.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard]: Wonder I what constitutes a desirable location. You know, what what what what what are they thinking when they're thinking about

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I think, yeah, it's apparently, they're not thinking about water, but they should be. Sounds like

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: water. I'm sorry too.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Great Yeah. Connectivity, energy and grid interconnection and water.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: And joint hearings on this, honestly. Yes. We should

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: have. Lacks governmental regulations. Alright. We are next up at 10:30 for a similar discussion on the agriculture bill. I'm gonna recess for now and and draft this letter, and then we'll move on. Alright. So we are recessed for the morning.